Slashdot Mirror
TorrentSpy Must Preserve Data In RAM For MPAA
Transient writes "Reaffirming a magistrate's earlier decision, a federal judge has ordered TorrentSpy to begin keeping server logs as it defends itself against an MPAA lawsuit. In her opinion, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper interpreted federal discovery rules broadly. ' Judge Cooper took issue with TorrentSpy's argument that data in RAM is not "stored." She noted RAM's function as primary storage and that the storage of data in RAM — even if not permanently archived — makes it electronically stored information governed by federal discovery rules.' Given that TorrentSpy has limited access for users in the US, the ruling may be moot. But it does set a precedent for other, similar cases. 'Under this interpretation, any data stored in RAM could be subject to a subpoena, as at a basic level it is a "medium from which information can be obtained" just like a hard drive. '"
"Funny, the data was in there before I pulled it out of the server."
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
...as the data that is put into RAM is read and erased, can they (Torrentspy) be charged with destruction of evidence?
Living With a Nerd
So can they convict me for destroying evidence because I turned off my computer?
Does this mean that turning a computer off could be considered destruction of, or tampering with, evidence ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Does this mean they can subpoena the contents of the white board in conference nine at 7:23 AM on June the 13, 2005?
Why can't the court grasp the transient nature of the content of RAM?
-Peter
Sort of like the uncertainty principle. In order to "store" RAM to a permanent medium, RAM will change to write itself to the medium. This reminds me of when I testified and tried to explain that from a programs perspective, VM looks just like RAM, just slower. I never managed to convince the prosecutor. Clearly the legal system hasn't a clue about tech.
Doesn't Vista encrypt some of it's data in RAM (DRMd media etc)? If Apache was modified to set the memory used for logs to be DRMd, would this make the data inaccessible?
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
tail -f /dev/mem > memlogs.txt
I say have fun with that one.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
If RAM can be subject to subpoenas, and it's illegal to destroy information that may later be subpoenaed, which is my understanding is true thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, that means that all computers used by all companies must keep a permanent record of the contents of computer RAM at any given time.
I guess it's time to buy stock in storage companies. I wonder if this also applies to cache RAM? There could be an infinite loop in there somewhere...
So... you have to be able to log everything that is in ram as well now
so we need faster processors and bigger hard drives to handle the extra load.
A normal log may not be that big, but when you get to a few months full of RAM logs for a busy server... I think this precedent will get overturned when they find out just what they are asking for.
I want to to write down every single thought you have for the next 10 weeks...
I am surprised that the costs issue was not addressed. Generally, and if I recall, that if there are costs on on electronic discovery, that cost can be shifted on to the requesting party.
For this the costs would be expensive.
There are two ways to archive this:
1. By snapshotting the ram.
2. By rewriting the server code.
By snapshotting the ram, it would require a program with root access to snap this and lots of data to be archive.
By rewriting the server code, it would take months to rewrite it properly and test it. Then they would to license the IP2location database to perform lookups on the IP address filter out US addresses. I suspect that this filtering would require one or two more computers to perform this.
Fight Spammers!
That's unfortunately part of the problem. I've dealt with plenty of "justice" people, from District Attorneys to Police Officers, that think they know what technology is all about. This judge is confident in her understanding of how computers work, and no justice-evading "thief" is going to outsmart HER. I'll bet the judge can't even program her VCR.
What the judge is saying is that just because you keep a file in RAM and not on on disk, you can't claim you aren't "storing" that data.
The magistrate judge didn't buy that argument, and in her opinion reaffirming the magistrate's order, neither did Judge Florence-Marie Cooper. Judge Cooper took issue with TorrentSpy's argument that data in RAM is not "stored." She noted RAM's function as primary storage and that the storage of data in RAM--even if not permanently archived--makes it electronically stored information governed by federal discovery rules. TorrentSpy: "We could log that information, but we choose not to."
Judge: "Choose to do so from this point on."
RAM isn't exactly relevant. This isn't some kind of temporary storage situation. This is a deliberate decision on the part of the software author. Now if you want to claim rights are being trodden upon, be my guest. But claiming that all RAM is now state's evidence is a stretch.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Except it is nothing like post its. It is more like you are using an etch a sketch to do your accounting and every new calculation, you shake it. Now you are required to write everything down.
Worse yet, what about a digital calculator.....you can't use one. You need to have one that prints out, etc.
The commentary on this article is extremely misleading. The judge in this case has ruled that because Torrentspy can log the IP's of requests to the server it must do so and hand them over to the court. This is absolutely not about the judge misunderstanding the nature of RAM and ordering them to hand over a bunch of DIMM's, yes judges can be technically ignorant but the courts are not stupid either you know. The judge is saying that because this data can be stored it must be. This actual ruling is of course far, far more disturbing than any technical ignorance could be, as it requires torrentspy to effectively spy on their users on behalf of the MPAA, something which should surely be illegal in itself, nevermind mandated by a court of law.
Folks, From TFA, we see the following, "[Torrentspy] argued that the log data wasn't available, since it existed only in RAM, and as such, was never stored". The judge, being nobodies dummy, accurately noted that this isn't an impediment to logging that data in the future and has ordered them to do so. Funny jokes about handing over DIMMs aside this is a totally reasonable concept. How many of you all think it's actually impossible to log a number that is in RAM? Are all you /. l33t programmers incapable of writing a variable out to a file?
Oh, I'm sure, many of you are going off on this whole RAM thing as if that was the point. What you are missing is that this ruling was meant not really believing that RAM is the key, but the fact of the matter that, for torrentspy transactions, they do not, for just the exact reason this lawsuit began, log connection information, even though that information does pass through the RAM of the system. They focused on RAM as it is, in this case, the only memory device that is realistically capturing any connection information. That connection information is what the prosecution wants. Ergo, this order is, for all intents and purposes, forcing torrentspy to adjust their software to capture the connection information. That's really all it is. The courts, I'm sure, are aware of the transitory nature of RAM, and, through this order, are only addressing that the memory in RAM be captured. The reason they bring this up is because torrentspy, all along, claimed they have no logs that capture connection information, so potential downtheroad supoena's of torrentspy users cannot occur, plsu an audit trail of abuses cannot be captured. This ruling basically says 'Nice try guys, but you now need to close up that loophole'. Seriously, you all go off on the nature of RAM and stupidity of non-technites, but you fail to grasp what this ruling is really about, enforced logging of details that should be captured but the fact that it isn't is 100% an attempt to cover up any illegal activity going on with their servers/services abd leaving no trail to trace. If this was read for what it really means 'Court orders torrentspy to modify software to capture all connection info', which would be more outside the realm of the court to order, it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow save for the tinfoil hat privacy types. But that is outside the mandate of the court, so they just said what they need and now it's up to Torrentspy to figure out how to do it.
The ruling is that TorrentSpy must, in future, maintain records of IP information. How is that meant to help prove or disprove the case that the MPAA are trying to prosecute, which must, by definition, have already occurred? This is not discovery - but an imposition on the way the software is to be re-written. Or can the MPAA say that they think that TorrentSpy will commit an offence sometime in the future and they now want to have the means to prove it?
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
According to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, passed in 1982, does not allow artificial islands to become sovereign nations. Sealand may have a valid claim to sovereignty before 1982, but any new attempts at creating a new nation will have to be based on a natural land mass.
Not a typewriter
The summary of this article sucks, most of the comments here are nothing more than ravings based on a bad summary.
The judge wants them to start logging IP addresses. But a judge can't just order anyone to do anything they feel like, there has to be some precedent or law saying they can. This judge said in legal terms, stuff in RAM is stored data. Then he applied rules based on law that covers stored data.
It's like if a company has a policy to burn documents every night, but the judge orders them not to burn documents until the end of the case. There's no expectation that burnt documents can magically be unburnt.
How about giving them a complete memory dump of RAM, letting them sort out what the data is that interests them? Can the judge require them to preserve it in pretty formats?
This whole order is such an overreach by this judge, and the US Judicial system, that an immediate halt should be put to it this very instant.
And just suppose, btw for the sake of argument, that the country were TS is located prohibits export of personal data due to privacy laws? Then who wins?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
TorrentSpy has announced that to comply with the MPAA Puppet^W^W impartial judge orders, all of its servers' RAM cards will be replaced by WOM cards. WOM, or Write Only Memory, is the latest cutting edge technology designed to ease the learning curve of geek challenged courts and remain compliant with discovery demands. All digital access information to their website will be safely stored in the WOM cards, readily surrendered to the courts. TorrentSpy has also announced implementation of the Fair Use Circumvention Kit at a later date but has declined to provide further details, despite curious snickering under their breaths.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Your honor, a tiny portion RAM log of the time in question
...
2007.08.28 15:40 set bit 1243434
2007.08.28 15:40 set bit 1243435
2007.08.28 15:40 cleared bit 1243436
2007.08.28 15:40 set bit 1243437
Obviously guilty!
Does this mean they can subpoena the contents of the white board in conference nine at 7:23 AM on June the 13, 2005?
YES, if the court gives you notice that you must preserve everything that is written on the whiteboards in all conference rooms, then they will expect you to have it preserved, and produce it when ordered.
Take a picture, log the contents, don't erase it - whatever you need to do to preserve the information. Saying "But I erased it!" isn't going to fly when you are subject to a prior order to NOT erase it.
Why can't the court grasp the transient nature of the content of RAM?
It sounds like the company was saying "But I really don't have it, it's just in RAM". That doesn't mean you don't have the information.
Note that this is a prospective discovery order - YOU WILL HAVE THE INFORMATION IN YOUR POSSESION, I REALIZE IT'S TRANSITORY AND YOU NORMALLY DON"T PRESERVE IT, BUT YOU CAN PRESERVE IT, AND I'M ORDERING YOU TO PRESERVE IT.
What's so hard about that?
Do you want to rank this judge's performance in a public manner? Visit The Robing Room and let your thoughts be heard. Just be sure to get her name and state correct. Judge Florence-Marie Cooper, Federal Judge, California.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That's just it, isn't it? Claiming of territory in space is governed by some UN treaty as I recall. But that doesn't matter. If I go and somehow colonize Mars right now, I'm vulnerable to anybody who might want to take it from me. The only solution is to arm Mars to defend it, at which point any aggressor can either fight and lose, or fight and lose far more than Mars is worth to them. Either case makes it illogical to try and capture Mars, and therefore they have to work with Mars, not just invade it.
This is precisely why the world politica is divided into two groups: Nuclear and non-nuclear powers. If a country is a nuclear power, the rules change, because that country can inflict substantial damage to you, more than the country itself is probably worth.
The other 97% of deforestation is due to the locals and the Brazilian government. ~60% cattle ranches, ~30-33% agriculture (~30% subsistence, ~1-3% commercial), and ~3% urbanization. (I found a pretty good link here, which has a nice pie graph, which is where I'm pulling these numbers since I'm not at my home computer with all my bookmarks: http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html)
So anyway, stop blindly believing hippie FUD from the the 60s and do a few minutes' worth of research on Google. Shit, I just looked at the wikipedia article and even they have a pretty good section on Amazon deforestation. So yeah, go ahead and use all the paper you want, it's actually GOOD for the environment and has been for the better part of a century. (Oh, and totally unrelated, but if you're still believing the hippie FUD about nuclear power, you'll want to do research on that too.
In spite of all of the ramblings to the contrary, it isn't technically difficult to add a logging feature to a piece of s/w to collect and store IP addresses, or other sorts of data currently only held in RAM. This assumes that the operators of the service can either modify that s/w themselves, or contract the vendor of said s/w to add this logging feature. In the case of proprietary s/w, with licensing provisions prohibiting reverse-engineering or modification, the latter may be the only recourse.
Now, lets suppose the operators of TorrentSpy contact the vendor, request that logging be added per the court's request and the vendor replies, "No".
Have gnu, will travel.
The real definition of sovereignty could very well be "has the ability to successfully defend from outside powers". Superman would be a sovereign individual, not bound to the laws of any country, because no country could enforce those laws upon him. Darfur is not sovereign because they cannot secure the land they claim as there own. So yes you are quite right that the world is divided into two groups, the sovereign countries and the countries who do as they are told. In that light, how could you blame Iran for wanting to have nukes?
We are all just people.
All jokes about RAM aside, this is the root of what's being said here - the addresses are in RAM, therefore it can be logged (and should be under the directions of the court in this case). They aren't telling them to record all data in RAM all the name, nor are they telling them RAM is a persistent medium.
You would drown. That's why so many of us live on land.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.